Re: ka and k^a [was: [tied] *kW- "?"]

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> > There seems to be an analogy to this in the Germanic languages,
> > where nominal morphology was more subject to levelling than
> > verbal. The only alternations in the former are the umlaut
> > plurals (e.g. English _foot_ ~ _feet_ (< *fo:t ~ *fo:tiz), German
> > _Hand_ ~ _Hände_ (< *hand ~ *handi[?])). However, there are
> > plenty of alternations in the latter, namely between the present,
> > preterite, and passive participles of "strong" verbs (e.g.
> > English _sing_ ~ _sang_ ~ _sung_). Does this behavior approach a
> > rule in human language?
>
> Verbal morphology tends to be more complex than nominal.

Yes, exactly. I think that's basically my point too.

- Rob